16-1380 Hechavarria v. Sessions 16‐1380 Hechavarria v. Sessions 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2017 6 7 (Submitted: February 1, 2018 Decided: May 16, 2018) 8 9 Docket No. 16‐1380 10 11 ____________________ 12 13 JOSEPH EMANUEL HECHAVARRIA, 14 15 Petitioner‐Appellant, 16 17 v. 18 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 20 THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PHILIPS, FIELD DIRECTOR 21 FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IMMIGRATION AND 22 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DETENTION AND REMOVAL, TODD TRYON, 23 FACILITY DIRECTOR, BUFFALO FEDERAL DETENTION FACILITY, 24 25 Respondents‐Appellees. 26 27 ____________________ 28 29 Before: POOLER, SACK, Circuit Judges, and ENGELMAYER, District Judge.1 30 1 Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of New 2 York (John T. Curtin, J.) denying petitioner‐appellant Joseph Emanuel 3 Hechavarria’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 4 Because Hechavarria is detained pending the resolution of his appeal to this 5 Court, we determine that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), rather than 8 6 U.S.C. § 1231. We therefore reverse the district court’s determination that 7 Hechavarria was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. In light of the substantial 8 uncertainty surrounding this area of detention after the Supreme Court’s 9 decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), we remand to the district 10 court for reconsideration of the habeas petition under the correct statutory 11 provision. 12 Reversed and remanded. 13 ____________________ 14 JOSEPH EMANUEL HECHAVARRIA, Batavia, N.Y., 15 pro se. 16 17 JESI J. CARLSON, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 18 Immigration Litigation, United States Department of 19 Justice (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney 20 General, Civil Division, John W. Blakeley, Assistant 21 Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on the brief), 22 Washington, D.C., for Respondents‐Appellees. 23 2 1 VILIA B. HAYES, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (Malik 2 Havalic, Dustin P. Smith, on the brief), New York, N.Y., 3 Amicus Curiae, in support of Petitioner‐Appellant. 4 5 6 7 POOLER, Circuit Judge: 8 The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides for the detention 9 of immigrants under various circumstances, two of which are at issue in this 10 case. Immigrants who have been ordered removed are detained during their 11 “removal period” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). “Criminal aliens” are detained 12 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether a 13 “criminal alien” is detained under Section 1231(a) when he has exhausted his 14 options for administrative review, even though he has a stay pending resolution 15 of his appeal in this Court. We hold today that when a stay has been issued, an 16 immigrant is not held pursuant to Section 1231(a) because he is not in the 17 “removal period” contemplated by statute until his appeal ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals